mrpeabody-trailer mrpeabody-trailer
CGIFeature Film

“Mr. Peabody and Sherman” Trailer Has Arrived

DreamWorks Animation and 20th Century Fox released the trailer this morning for Mr. Peabody and Sherman. The Rob Minkoff-directed feature will be released in the U.S. on March 7, 2014.

  • Satorical

    That ad is not targeted at adult fans, that’s for sure.

  • RickyButler89

    American trailers are so bad . Far too much dumbing down. The German trailer is way better, and i don’t speak German!

    • Barrett

      This trailer gave away a lot, but I don’t think there’s any amount of re-editing than can fix the fundamental flaws here. This trailer gave away too much of the movie, but in doing so gave away enough for me to lose most hope for the film retaining much of the tone Jay Ward would have infused it with.

  • Matt

    Speaking of time travel the look of that film seems to have gone back to Antz in terms of looks.

    • AmidAmidi

      This film doesn’t resemble “Antz” either technically or aesthetically. Please explain your viewpoint.

  • Dana B

    Ok, wow… This actually looks like it’ll be a big hit! I was very iffy about the idea of a film based on Mr. Peabody, but it looks like DW is gonna do a great job on this.

    I also LOVE what they’re doing with the character designs and animation! Watching from the beginning, I actually forgot that this was DW, that’s how much change their work has gone through. Very impressive stuff. And to think their human character models used to look…well, horrible. I know they like to shift between semi-realistic and toony visuals for their films, but I think the style displayed in Mr.P&S is the route the studio should go with from now on, just my opinion.

    Now for not so kind words. Not that many laugh out loud jokes in the trailer. Let’s hope they’re saving the good ones by the time they start putting out commercials. The story could go either way. There’s the possibility for the fun side of it(time traveling, timelines getting messed up bringing historic figures together) and the heartwarming side(Peabody’s relationship with Sherman).

    I know this is only a teaser, but it’s got mr convinced that DW is finally starting to find they’re sea legs after HTTYD and Croods(with the exception of a few duds). Can’t wait to see more!

  • hash

    Dreamsworks came to my school a month ago and showed a different trailer. That one was very cringe worthy, it didnt show much plot and was essentially a music video for a pop song. This one seems much more promising, and as much as people dont like it, its actually got me excited for the movie

    • jmahon

      yknow, I still can’t believe that people, especially animation enthusiasts, are STILL judging a movie from the quality of it’s trailer.
      Animation trailers are rarely good, and it isn’t the producers/directors who make them. They’re done for marketing, by marketing. Come on, surely you all know that by now…

      • You’re supposed to judge a movie from the quality of its trailer. That’s why they make them.

        • optimist

          Not if you know anything about either animation or filmmaking or work in those areas, you’re not.

        • Mark

          Thank you captain obvious for telling us why trailers are made. That user was pointing out that some animation marketing teams (dreamworks especially has this problem) advertise their movies as something completely different from what it is. For example the HTTYD trailers made it look like an incoherent, slapstick-filled mess yet the film itself was nothing like that. If you refused to watch that movie because of the bad trailers then you missed out on a really quite good film. jmahon was suggesting that might be the case for this movie as well. I’m sure you realize this but you felt the need to be contrarian anyway.

    • Barrett

      If THIS trailer was the more promising one, I would have hated to sit through whatever you were shown at your school.

  • Bob Harper

    As a die hard Jay Ward fan I can only say – “NO!”

    • Jonah Sidhom

      As a die hard Jay Ward fan, I would think anything that’s keeping Mr. Peabody and Sherman in the public eye would be something you would like to encourage? More people will be aware of/reminded of/search out the originals this way.

      I’m personally looking forward to seeing this film. I’m also a fan of Jay Ward and the originals. I don’t see anyone problem with this film so far.

      • Vaska

        “I would think anything that’s keeping Mr. Peabody and Sherman in the public eye would be something you would like to encourage?”

        That’s awful logic. It won’t encourage anyone to search out the originals because it’s nothing like the originals. People who enjoy the film will find the original off-putting because of its radically different tone and people who hate the film aren’t going to look up the original in the first place.

        Bad remakes aren’t a good way of reminding people of classics; no one has made a ‘sequel’ to the Mona Lisa to remind folks of the painting.

        • Jonah Sidhom

          No, but if everyone collectively stopped talking about and referencing the Mona Lisa, it would disappear from the public consciousness eventually. Only art students and historians would know about it.

          I stand by my previous comment.

          • Bob Harper

            This isn’t Sherman and Peabody.

          • meh

            As Mr. Peabody’s head is thrust through the Mona Lisa for a throwaway sight gag, we trivialize great works.

            Also, what a tired gag…

          • Chris Sobieniak

            Still the “Sphinx-ter shoot” was an interesting clip in this trailer.

          • Vaska

            And if everyone talks about the Mona Lisa only in regards to graffiti stencils, beauty advertisements, and replicas in Lego then the meaning of the artwork is lost anyway. This is a movie that involves none of the original writers or artists and therefore, whatever its intentions, cannot be viewed as faithful to the original shorts.

            Having something fade from public cultural memory may be unpleasant but better that the original idea be buried with dignity then diminished by a re-imagining. Otherwise we’ll have a place where Stephanie Meyer penning a sequel to ‘The Great Gatsby’ is just fine because just maybe a few people will go read the original while the power of the original is twisted in the minds possible thousands of other people.

          • Jonah Sidhom

            Well if you’re comparing this film’s quality to a Stephanie Meyer sequel of Gatsby, then I can see where you’re coming from. But I happen to think it looks pretty good, even if I’m not a fan of the way the trailer was cut.

          • jack

            “This is a movie that involves none of the original writers or artists and therefore, whatever its intentions, cannot be viewed as faithful to the original shorts.”

            That is the worst attempt at critical thinking I have seen so far on this thread. So because I wasn’t involved in building the camera, I can’t take photographs faithful to the intent of the camera’s inventor? Because I didn’t have a hand in editioning Warhol’s prints I can’t make a faithful homage to them in my own work?

            I’m not saying I agree with the others, and you’ve made plenty of other good points, but that bit above needs some re-thinking.

        • George_Cliff

          I agree except that I don’t think it’s a problem of logic. To me the problem is a fundamental lack of critical appraisal of the kind that advances the art.

          For fun here are a few examples of Hollywood taking classic IP and driving it to the dump en route to the ATM on the other side:

          * Peter Pan 2
          * Mulan 2
          * The Lion King 2 – Ad Infinitum
          * Super Mario Bros. The Movie
          * The second Charlie Brown Christmas special
          * Any Star Wars movie that is a factor of the number 6
          * The Matrix 2 & 3

          • Vaska

            “Hollywood taking classic IP and driving it to the dump en route to the ATM on the other side.”

            I am so stealing that.

      • As a Jay Ward fan, why would I give a flying fig about whether the old cartoons are in the public eye?

        • Jonah Sidhom

          So more people can appreciate and recognize his awesome work. Not saying you *should* care, but personally I like it when good cartoons get recognized on a wider scale.

        • Barrett

          Because you would want future generations to fall in love with them, as opposed to fade away, only to be appreciated by cartoon historians and a few oddballs into eclectic old stuff.

          I don’t buy the “any exposure is good exposure” argument posed above, but I would like to see Jay Ward’s creations continue to get some kind of media exposure, even if it’s just renewed following via Netflix or something. They are crudely animated, but have a good design sense, are well-timed and very well written. Classics despite their sub-par animation. But I worry that something that looks crude and primitive might seem dated to jaded modern audiences,especially those who never saw these characters in reruns, which were pretty much constant throughout the 70s-90s.

        • Bob Harper

          You wouldn’t and rightfully so. We all remember how the classic Alvin and the Chipmunks and Yogi Bear and Under Dog DVDs sold like hotcakes when there “updated” versions came out, right?

          It works in reverse. My kids, unfortunately, think that the originals are derivative of the current movies.

  • akira

    note to self: short dreamworks stock until after this one bombs and buy it back before HTTYD2 opens. wow, the voices are terrible! Kronk’s voice is great on Kronk but enough is enough. seriously there are tons of other talented voices out there that aren’t going to conjure up memories of other characters that are a few years old. i really hope that this didn’t cost that much to make and thus won’t kill future feature animation possibilities.

    • otterhead

      Can you explain how someone doing a very decent Mr Peabody voice and a little boy doing a little boy voice are “terrible”? Sounds to me like you based your entire opinion of the trailer on a dislike of Patrick Warburton.

      • akira

        it’s not that it’s warburton, it’s that he’s doing the same exact very distinct delivery over and over. as for peabody, it isn’t like the original to me, not that it has to be, but the sometimes slightly english accent, sometimes veering toward vincent price is annoying to me. maybe the actual dialogue and direction that requires him to deliver every line with a snide attitude is what makes it truly terrible. i think ty burell just can’t play intelligent. there are so many parts of the trailer that seem like they’re supposed to be funny, that just are not which makes it worse than just not being funny. i just can’t imagine who’s gunna run out to see this one. it’s just such a far cry from that truly inspired and inspiring HTTYD2 teaser or the lego movie and i was hoping for more. if it was direct to tv i wouldn’t even watch it. looking forward to future dreamworks projects!

        • optimist

          Vincent Price? ENGLISH accent?? I assure you he’s not snide in the least.

  • Pedro

    The Way-Back Machine is looking like the pod from “Contact.”

    • Zippy

      Nope it looks like the one from FreeBirds that looks like the one from Contact…

      • Rickyb

        Stairs from Flight of the Navigator

  • TK

    What happened to us, Kodos?!

    • Kodos

      Quiet, you!

  • Nothing stands out as super great or super terrible, though I found it to be better than I was expecting. The usual Dreamworks-y trailer jokes are a little off putting though.

  • Jeff

    Enough already with Patrick Warburton, he has brought nothing to animated films that he didn’t already do in Seinfeld, same voice, same character. Ugghhhh Not funny.

    • Barrett

      I like him, though I would like to see him not spread so thin. His characters in Emperor’s new Groove, Venture Brothers and Family Guy are pretty funny. The character shown here is probably the first one I’ve seen that actually looks like his face, Kronk was the closest before this. It is kind of weird seeing Warburton as a CG toon of himself, but not as creepy as the digital Willem Dafoe and Ellen Page in that new PS3 game. Most animated films seem to have learned how to avoid the Uncanny Valley, but console games still seem to like to purposefully return there.

  • MaskedManAICN

    Dreamworks does it again, a movie I have no interest in seeing! Not that I was a huge fan of the original cartoon, but at least it wasn’t a cookie cutter, beat you over the head, warm fuzzy feeling, pop-y attitude, ‘this is how you make a family movie’ cartoon.

  • William Bradford

    Apart from Warburton, this doesn’t actually look half bad: certainly the look was better then I expected.

  • Muldoon

    A decent 70 minute direct to video animated property. Scant resemblance to Jay Ward’s Mr. Peabody and Sherman, starting with Peabody’s voice and continuing with the ancillary girl character driving the action in this trailer. Such a global, intergalactic story arena is just the sort of thing that Bill Scott and Jay Ward would have mercilessly ridiculed. No, we’re not still living in 1960. That becomes more painfully obvious with each passing creative reimagining by corporate America. It will make money won’t redefine any financial models as DW hopes it might.

  • meh

    Over rendered pablum

  • Ron Hamel

    At least Cartoon Brew is letting people voice their true opinions on this movie. Animation Scoop is deleting any negative views. Kudos to Amid for keeping it real!

    • optimist

      …their opinions on the movie’s TRAILER. Speaking of keeping it real.

      • Ron Hamel

        Sorry , my bad.

  • AmidAmidi

    But “Jimmy Neutron” and “Antz” are nothing alike either. You’re just randomly throwing out the names of films without displaying any knowledge of the aesthetic decisions or technical processes that made those films look the way they do. Yes, we all know that much of American feature animation feels the same, but for whatever the faults of “Mr. Peabody and Sherman,” the film bears little in common aesthetically with either of your examples.

    • Matt

      Well you must be liking this film a lot cause you are defending it at every turn. I used examples that make sense. The film in terms of looks is just boring. It looks like earlier CG work and we have come so far yet this film looks like it could of been made in the mid 90’s. My gripe is that everything looks so CG and perfect and overall just lacks in the design and lighting department. This is one of those films that should of stayed 2D.

      • Vaska

        You must be new here. The standard accusation in practically every other post is that Amid hates everything.

        You’d have been better off saying that the designs in Peabody and Sherman look lazy, unexciting, and low-quality rather then trying to argue they looked like other films and then resorting to an Ad Hominem attack. Antz had a different art style and so did Jimmy Neutron. The style was arguably awful but it was different.

        • Matt

          Hey Vaska,

          Not new here but yes I did walk right into that one. Instead of trying to be clever with my first statement I should of just said “these designs are ugly and stale”. There I said.

    • khan8282

      I’ve got to agree. I’d love to see more drastic experimentation with the CG medium, and the look of this trailer does nothing to capture the essence of the original cartoons. At the same time, I sort of wonder how well a flat shading scheme or limited animation would hold the audience’s attention for a feature-length film.

      2D has really exploded in terms of experimentation though, and in a lot of ways it seems better suited to it. I mean, just look at that Ghibli teaser that was released today.

  • Vaska

    This is extraordinarily bad. Dreamworks made a mistake in trying to expand what were five-to-ten minute shorts into a full movie and compounded that mistake by hiring writers that never bothered to watch the show. Instead the characters have been inserted into a highly generic film:

    There’s the obligatory and unasked for love interest. There’s the Dreamworks screaming comedy secondary characters. There’s a sequence with Da Vinci’s flying machine which was old when Family Guy did it four years ago. There’s an absolute failure to translate Jay Ward’s designs or create a new art direction for the characters.

    Most galling are the changes to Mr. Peabody which undermines the setup that made the original show work. He was an imperturbable scientist who introduced the viewer to the upcoming historical situation, offered under-handed pithy remarks, and the groaning pun at the end. Here he mugs for the camera, waves his hands around a lot, and even shouts. Perhaps the worst part is replacing the late Bill Scott with a name actor, Ty Burell, who does fine on Mad Men but does not have the timbre-range or enunciation to emphasize Peabody’s sharp lines.

    • DJD

      How did you conclude all this from the trailer? You haven’t seen the film yet so I am not exactly sure how you can comment on the story.
      Also, Ty Burell is not on Mad Men…

    • Arthur F.

      Da Vinci and machines got the Futurama treatment a little while back too, etc… it’s the list of tropes from history Americans would know, which gets reduced year after year.

      Well-said about Ty Burrell – I couldn’t stand how soft Peabody’s voice was, and it is precisely timbre-range and enunciation of sharp lines, that keeps and identity with some minimum tension – energy – in the voice.

    • Roberto

      I disagree with your complaints about Mr. Peabody’s attitude. He could keep the same facial expression during a short but he can’t during a feature length movie. He still looks like an imperturbable scientist for the most part. Even when he shouts or wave his hands he’s not extremely zany or furious angry. If he gets angry it’s for a slow period of time and he doesn’t shout too much. He acts more like Marvin the Martian rather than Daffy Duck or Tazmanian Devil. I think they translated his personality pretty well. Like I said, it’s what I like the most about the trailer. Mr. Peabody looks pretty in character and he’s charismatic.

  • jmahon

    please stop forming your opinions of this movie based on a trailer cut by a marketing department. All this “this looks awful, they’ve ruined everything, I won’t go see it” just because of a trailer is a bit pathetic…. and after all, us animators/animation enthusiasts should be used to this by now.
    Come on, you guys!

    • Vaska

      Why shouldn’t we form personal opinions based on a trailer? Must we watch every minute of a film before we say something about it? Even for Battlefield Earth?

      Dreamworks put the trailer out for the public to view and, in their mind, hopefully share and comment on positively. If someone who remembers and enjoys the old shows finds the tone and the subject matter of the trailer to be off-tone and reacts negatively that’s their prerogative; there’s no way they can see the whole movie at this point to form their mind and there’s no requirement to anyway.

      I don’t have to read all Twilight to decide it’s bad, the first ten pages will do that. Heck, the back cover will do that. Instead of getting angry at people for having negative opinions, why not try positing your own positive ones?

    • JeanbearTheImmasculator

      I’m just sick of pretentious animators in general.

      • Barrett

        I’m more sick of cheap cash-in rehashed ideas being the tentpole features at animation studios than I am of pretentious animators. There’s a balance, and Hollywood is swinging way too far over to the banal and predictable side. The opposite end is beautifully-crafted but deadly dull affairs like “The Illusionist.” In the middle are true works of art like Wall-E, Paranorman, Coraline, and Wreck-It Ralph. Hell, even How To Train Your Dragon and The Croods had more creativity and artistic integrity than most of DW’s output.

        • IJK

          I forgot how every film a studio pumps out needs to be fantastic and of the highest artistic merit, just look at Disney during in its hey day putting out great films like Black Cauldron and Sword in the Stone!

          Robin Hood was definitely not one of the most dull films they’ve ever made, it was pure magic and animation fantasy.

  • Ninja_Toes

    Yeah, I’m conflicted.
    On one hand it look like large parts of this will be aiming for that embarrassingly treacly quality that Disney and DreamWorks call on a lot these days
    On the other hand it looks like it has all of those dorky and mildly geeky history jokes that made the original Mr. Peabody and Sherman work, and that I love so much.
    But at least it has me mildly interested in a film I had pretty much written off.

  • Chris Powell

    I still feel like its hard to say what the final result could be but I definitely don’t feel thrilled. I think what bugs me is based on the trailer and some of the media Ive read, the film will follow a formula we”ve seen in a lot of modern animated films (daddy issues, how do I raise my kid issues, learning to be yourself) and it weird because the original Peabody cartoons were just irreverent little stories of puns and satire. I wouldn’t mind watching an hour and a half of puns and satire if it was good. Ill have to wait and see the final output but it feels (based on the trailer) too much like films we’ve seen recently.
    Also I feel like Peabody should talk faster :)
    Visually, it looks fun! Im digging the designs.
    We’ll see….

  • The art is fine, but this trailer certainly cured me of any desire to see it. I said in a previous post on this subject that the failure of virtually every adaptation of Jay Ward toons is their inability to understand the satirical, punny, nonsense humour of the originals. This one HAS to have a love interest and HAS to have them saving the universe and HAS to have heartfelt moments of character development and HAS to have this moralizing and tearjerking that are EXACTLY the sort of things the original Rocky and Bullwinkle show upended. A proper Jay Ward adaptation would probably feel much more like a Monty Python movie than whatever this is. Pass, thanks.

    • SarahJesness

      Agreed, that’s my problem with the trailer: they just gave it a typical Hollywood formula story.

  • George Comerci

    Guys, it doesn’t look too bad. The animation seems ok, and there were some laughs for me. And that Trojan is voiced by joe from family guy :)

  • jhalpernkitcat

    I really don’t know what to think since I’m staring at a trailer for a movie that seems very unlike the series it’s (suppose) to be based on. Yes it has a genius dog, his pet boy and their time machine, the Wayback, yet I see a plot line that looks more at home in Doctor Who than in Peabody and Sherman.

    Although I did get a small laugh at the “That’s not my hand, Sherman” in regards to the Mummy–that part actually did seem like something out of the show–complete with Mr.Peabody making a bad pun (although those were usually reserved for the end of the shorts rather than peppered throughout.)

    Also Peabody should not be marketed as a dog “making his mark on history.”

  • SaburoDaimando

    My one complaint about the movie so far? Mr Peabody sounds less than his Rocky and Bullwinkle counterpart. And I was actually hoping for that kind of voice.

  • George Comerci

    Honestly, I think it looks good. Fun storytelling, with creative animation and some good characters. It doesn’t look all that bad to me, and will be a good add-on to the Dreamworks library :D

  • Jefferey’s Wayback Machine

    I wish DW management had a WayBack machine so they could go back in time and make the smarter decision not to Green Light this movie…. This looks like a student film.

    • Mark

      Does it, does it really?

      • IJK

        There are so many people making these dumb “LOOKS LIKE A STUDENT FILM” comments on these big CGI films lately. Where the hell are these people going to school where that is student standard? I’d pay big bucks to go there!

  • Anonymous

    I thought they got rid of their old head of marketing? This looks like the same stuff to me.

  • top_cat_james

    “And Alfred Nobel became a success after inventing dynamite, huh, Mr. Peabody?”

    “That’s right, Sherman, but I’m afraid that success went to his head. You see, not long afterward, he was removed from a local cinema for popping his empty popcorn bags, and in an act of revenge he went around planting explosives in ticket booths citywide.”

    “Gosh, Mr. Peabody, I’ve never heard of such a thing!”

    “Oh, come now, Sherman. Surely you’ve heard of a…box office bomb?” [TUBA BLEAT]

    • AM

      Brilliant! You should’ve written this film.

    • Harry Bastard

      AAAAAAAnnnd thank you for that.

    • RC Williams


  • the Gee

    Saw this mentioned on another site:

    John Hodgeman as the voice of Peabody.
    I would be much more forgiving had I heard a variation of that than what I hear in this trailer.
    It is about close to perfect and that only would have added to that charm of a smart, talking dog.

    All in all, from what I see….it is great that they made something using those characters. The premise…well, there’s been plenty of years for others to twist around the premise. I hope they figured out the charm of the histories and the solutions that were in the originals. If they did, great.

  • Andrew Kieswetter

    I’m looking forward to seeing it, Others may say ‘Jay Ward & Bill Scott are rolling in their graves!’ but I won’t. Also, I’d rather Dreamworks not give away the whole movie in their trailers. (please)

  • Arthur F.

    Just from the trailer:

    Peabody’s voice is too soft all around! Not enough particularity. Jay Ward had great voices, even secondary characters, and they always had some grain, dynamics to their dialects, so that the words alone carried the humor. (as animation wasn’t the strong part obviously)

    “Time machine” + “ripped a whole in the space-time continuum”…
    Enough with that in cartoons, please. Even if Peabody and Sherman are based on the ‘Wayback’, don’t just repeat today’s tropes! Find what was interesting in the past version.

    Any character playing an electric guitar: Please stop this. Really. It’s not the comedic hip sign of today’s anything. This isn’t Back to the Future.

    I always enjoy to hear Warburton’s/Brock Samson’s voice — “I did NOT see that coming!” actually makes me laugh, but because it’s that voice and good delivery.

    • IJK

      “Enough with that in cartoons, please.”

      So when characters are dealing with time-travel, what do you want to happen? They do no damage and everything comes out peachy keen with no adventure? Really, time travelling immediately means screwing up the timeline, there’s not exactly an alternative to that…

      • Arthur F.

        Sure there is: storytelling. I just pointed out the “ripped a whole” is just one tired alternative. It’s e-z time-travel cartoon writing. Whatever amount of money they paid for authors, I just can’t believe THAT is the plotline.

        • IJK

          “Sure there is: storytelling.”

          That statement doesn’t really make sense… It’s like saying “How do I improve this story?” “You storytell better.” What?

          It’s e-z time travel cartoon writing because if you mess up time travel, that’s generally what happens. Again, what OTHER alternative is there if a character messes up something in the time stream? There’s not a whole lot. Unless they go back to the past and just study it from afar, screwing up the future is generally the only thing that results from time travelling.

          It’s like dropping a fragile glass cup and saying it was too predictable when it shatters…

    • Funkybat

      I laughed at the “I did NOT see that coming!” line because it worked for me on a couple of levels, at least one of which was probably not intentional. It’s initially funny because everyone and his brother knows the story of the Trojan horse, but of course there’s no reason those guys would if it hadn’t been done yet. But I also found it to be funny as a kind of commentary on the whole trailer, because so much of it was as predictable as the Trojan horse itself, including the gag involving it. Kind of a meta-comment on the film the character is in. Again, probably not intentional, but funny to me anyway.

  • Mr. Peabody

    Casting comparisons to the original aside, I think it looks visually appealing. And story wise looks like it could be a fun time.
    With that said the biggest missed opportunity is in the style of motion.
    Here we have cute cartoony characters, whose design is arguably simple (compared to most cg), and yet the animation strays from something cartoony and simple. From what we see its very overworked and gestural.
    In my dumb opinion, the Animation style should always support design and vice versa.
    The DW animators are super talented and i only I wish they tried something new with their style. Make each movie feel unique.

    • IJK

      Studios develop styles just like artists do. Disney has a style, Laika has a style, anything Tim Burton directs has a style… Even TellTale Games has a style even though they try to give each game an individual art direction, they still all have the same “feel” to them.

      Dreamworks has more variety in their style than any of the other big studios around right now. Kung Fu Panda looks nothing like Dragon which looks nothing like Monsters vs. Aliens.

      Just because the visual styles aren’t in the extremes for each film doesn’t mean they’re not trying.

  • Roberto Severino

    Agreed 100%. In fact, I almost thought of Joe Swanson from Family Guy when I heard Patrick Warburton’s voice. I don’t understand why they needed the girlfriend character. The original characters on their own were pretty good to me. If they really wanna bring awareness to these characters, show the damn shorts on TV again and maybe make something that has a lot more integrity in terms of paying homage to Jay Ward.

    • Funkybat

      This film doesn’t seem to be doing all that much to “pay homage” to Jay Ward or that style of humor. There wasn’t a single groaner pun in the entire trailer (the “disarming” comment doesn’t really count.) I thought Mr. Peabody was Kelsey Grammar at first but instead it sounds like someone doing Kelsey Grammar rather than someone doing Mr. Peabody. I also found it kind of annoying that they seem to insist on calling the Wayback Machine “The Wayback.” The girl seems annoyingly generic and there only to cause trouble for Sherman to have to find his way out of (while I’m sure developing a crush on her.)

      Unlike “Turbo,” I’m not discouraged enough to plan on skipping seeing the film, but I can’t say I’m overly excited about it either. I’ll give it a chance when it comes out and hope for the best.

      • Roman S.

        it was originally supposed to be Robert Downey Jr but now it’s the dad from Modern Family

      • Basilia Brush

        I suspect they could no longer called it the ‘Wayback Machine’ to avoid confusion with the Google archive of the same name. But yeah,this isn’t the Peabody I remember. What a disservice to Jay Ward’s awesome creation.

  • Eman

    I know better than to base a Dreamworks film on the trailer, but this makes it very hard not to.

  • Tim

    Seems like the bit with Da Vinci describing the kid might actually be edited that way in the film. Does this mean the Family Guy cutaway joke is now going to be a feature film thing?

  • Hmm. I’m still trying to pinpoint how I feel about this trailer. For one thing, I feel it falls victim of modern American film marketing, with more focus on comedic moments than plot. I feel it would have been MUCH better if Dreamworks just got an English dub of the Spanish/German trailer.

    With that said, I’m still staying hopeful for this movie. It still looks like a fun ride. I noticed some of the minor characters had Jay Ward like designs (e.g. the dumb warrior who finds the mini-Trojan horse, and even the Sphinx was stylized a bit), so that’s a cool touch. Hopefully the rest of the promotional effort for this movie will be more consistent than this.

    Though I will say I’m tired of the hoity-toity people here claiming the movie is “nothing” like the original show. You’re comparing a 50+ year old cartoon with a shoestring budget, a handful of voice actors, and minimal to no animation to a 21st century big-budget animated feature, OF COURSE IT’S GONNA BE DIFFERENT.

    • Animator606432

      But why does it have to be? And if it is going to do something different then the cartoons, why does it have to take every cliche from animated films in the past decade and put it in? If they are trying introduce a new generation to the shorts, this is a horrible way to do so.

      • You can’t actually expect them to create a carbon copy of the past. Adapting a property like this alone is burdensome enough, if the hatred spewed on this page is proof of anything. You’d think by now people here would understand that American advertising for animated movies usually sucks nowadays, which is why I’m still giving this the benefit of the doubt.

        If you want to just watch the original shorts, fine. If you’ve watched the original shorts are are willing to recognize this movie as a take of the series from the perspective of a different, contemporary group of people, that’s fine too. Personally, I think I’m going to stick with the latter.

        • Animator606432

          I understand what you are saying but at the same time, there is a reason people loved the shorts. If you strip everything away from what made them likable in the first place and change into something completely unrecognizable, what is the point? Look, i’m not a child of the sixties or anything either, I was born in the mid 90’s. So it’s not like I have rose colored glasses on or anything. I’m just sick of seeing great imaginative properties get watered down and turned into something bland.
          Also, I’m not against adaptations of any material. Look at the Harry Potter series. It may have not been a carbon copy of the original, but it still had the feeling of all the books. This doesn’t have any of the wit or dry humor of Jay Ward’s original creation. And even taking that out of the picture, it doesn’t even look like a great movie all on it’s own. I’ve seen both trailers and ,while the German one is better, it still doesn’t leave me excited to see the movie.

  • Shazbot

    I think Dreamworks/Fox should have focused more on how Peabody came to adopt Sherman…I remember seeing the very first episode of P&S not long ago, which dealt with the adoption, and it was rather touching and witty. It was way more fun than this trailer. Bummer.

  • SarahJesness

    I’m sure the marketing department is making this look worse than it really is… But even putting that aside, there’s nothing here to get me psyched. It all feels like they just took Peabody and Sherman and put it through the Hollywood Formula machine. Parental angst/dramatics, teenage/child angst, a love interest, etc…

  • My nickname when I was a kid was Mr Peabody

  • Shazbot

    The German trailer is sooooooooo much better, even without translations: Now THIS made me want to see the movie!

  • wgan

    for the trailer, it looks fun, I don’t give a damn about the original one whatsoever.

  • Roberto González

    It looks decent for modern kid flick standards, but I was expecting a little better from recent Dreamworks. This looks like the adaptation of Mr. Peabody and Sherman they’d have done when they were producing Bee Movie and Over The Hedge. But now they could have tried harder to do something more surprising with the visuals. Something closer to Jay Ward’s style.

    Mr. Peabody keeps his charisma. I am not an expert in his original voice cause I have seen most of the old cartoons dubbed in spanish, but I find the voice ok. And the design keeps some of the original charm.

    Everything else looks really generic. Not bad, just forgettable. Looks like a movie you can enjoy but you won’t be revisiting pretty often. The girl character looks especially generic and unnecessary.

    I hope the Peanuts movie from BlueSky makes a bigger effort on keeping the original look and spirit.

  • LoverofAnimation

    Some of you other guys here say that this movie is a terrible idea and is in no way good for the original series.

    I couldn’t disagree anymore.

    I think that this movie is a great way of re-sparking interest in Peabody and Sherman. I mean a few days ago, I never even heard about those two. After I saw the trailer, I looked up an episode to see how the original series were like. And that’s why this movie, whether its going to be good or bad, is going to be good for the originals. Its like how The Last Airbender was just so awful, that it made the TV show look even better than it already was.

  • Animator606432

    This doesn’t look terrible….but it looks SO cliched. While I’ve never been a huge fan of Sherman and Mr. Peabody (not bad but haven’t watched it enough), I love the Rocky and Bullwinkle show. I love Jay Wards style of humor and nothing in this trailer remotely shows this. This is the type of things he made fun of, for a reason. I’ll give it credit for at least being fully animated (instead of doing a live action/CGI abomination hybrid) but that doesn’t make it look any better.

  • The Boy from Ipanema

    The moment the elevator doors opened and I saw The Petersons, I immediately lost interest.

  • Dennis Cornetta

    Wow! I’m the first NON-Brazilian person to travel backwards through time!

    Actually Homer you’re the second.

  • Basilia Brush

    The voice of Peabody is all wrong.Not cultured or clipped enough. All I could think when I heard it was “Quiet,you!”